Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I agree about negatives generally. There are negatives you can prove.....Theists have often made the point "There is no way to prove atheism because you can't prove a negative."....
Yep. My point is that we are well within the area of being confident that we can gain knowledge about God's existence one way or the other.The existence of this thing we call "gravity"? Thats a pretty low bar.
Yes. We don't want as an evidentiary standard to suggest that the epistemic agent have omniscience.But.... there are certain kinds of negatives you cant prove. One example is a negative claim that would require universal searching to prove.
I'm baffled by people's appeal to scripture as a source of knowledge in this particular thread. We are talking about what is true rationally, based on formal and informal logic both having their warrant in self-evident axioms. Why would we argue from a text that every non-believer would assume to be false, necessarily?
Perhaps, but since Paul argues with the gentile philosophers of his day in Ephesus and Athens, for a period of years in the former case, it boggles the mind that any person reading Acts 13-19 would not duplicate Paul's method.I'm convinced there are a certain percentage of Christians who become so engrossed in 'studying' the Bible that they actually begin to accept that it, alone, represents true history. For them, science, logic, archaeology, and a whole host of modern understandings can only be clarified by searching the Bible for something that resembles the topic being discussed.
Perhaps, but since Paul argues with the gentile philosophers of his day in Ephesus and Athens, for a period of years in the former case, it boggles the mind that any person reading Acts 13-19 would not duplicate Paul's method.
Further the Christians took over the field of philosophy by the second century and maintained it in Europe until the enlightenment. Perhaps one could throw in the Islamic scholars from 1000-1400 but with such a rich history of rationally arguing from non-biblical premises to theistic conclusions, well it is frustrating.
One wants to quote Santayana here.
If we place the starting line around when the Hebrews were coming to understand a single monotheistic God, I'd say we've made amazing progress in understanding the material world through scientific inquiry since then....So we can't use the argument: look at how much progress we've made understanding our universe as compared to understanding whether God exists. We have numerous theories that are completely overturned regularly. Now I'm not the least bit bothered by this fact. But we should not hold the theism question to a differing knowledge standard, that's all.
Please prove that there is no teapot orbiting Jupiter.
thanks for your replyThis is such a good point. I was truly surprised when our bible study group read Numbers , during which time I decided I needed to freshly read Exodus, and the repeated situation with Israel that big miracles would happen, the big, dramatic, impossible seeming kind, right in front of their eyes, the column of fire, the parting of the sea, the plauges, the water from the rock. Big stuff. Yet, in spite of the big stuff right in front of their eyes, many would not believe fully. It was just...surprising to see that. How much does it take for someone to believe that is cautious even? For me, it was quite a few things (but not so large as these!), and together like perhaps a dozen was enough to know then there is no longer any doubt. But these people had much more drastically dramatic and huge miracles right in front of them, with all their friends witnessing too, and still many had less than full faith, and many just seemed to outright not believe.
How?
It's kinda...really pronounced, or just...hard for me to imagine. I mean after 5 or more huge miracles, how could any human being not believe? Yet, indeed many did not really believe, even though the miracles were going straight through Moses, and other signs given straight through Moses, so that...well, how could anyone imagine Moses wasn't getting the true and real words from God, or that when the 12 spies went across to see the promised land, that 10 thought God couldn't handle Canaanite cities full of idol worshipers (who did great evils Deu 12:31), because once you see so many miracles already, then wouldn't you believe the old story about Sodom being destroyed?
Yet...even with Christ Himself in person right in front of the eyes of His own followers, doing signs and miracles, and them following Him up close, personally with Him, even then:
11 The Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. 12 He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it.” 13 Then he left them, got back into the boat and crossed to the other side.
14 The disciples had forgotten to bring bread, except for one loaf they had with them in the boat. 15 “Be careful,” Jesus warned them. “Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod.”
16 They discussed this with one another and said, “It is because we have no bread.”
17 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18 Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember? 19 When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?”
“Twelve,” they replied.
20 “And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?”
They answered, “Seven.”
21 He said to them, “Do you still not understand?”
Mark 8 NIV
And look they are believers, mostly. How much does it take until someone believes fully?
God is so merciful, because even with only a small faith, for a moment of sincere prayer, done in real humility, He is willing to rescue those who are so prodigal as I was.
But the thing that stands out is that miracles done right in front of someone's eyes even won't necessarily lead to believe.
So, I'm thinking it's not 'proof' many need (though I did, and some like Thomas needed more, as did I)...but instead it's solely about the hardness of hearts.
Why would that be a valid inference? How do you know the teapot wasn't from Magrathea and simply got lost during the construction of earth?
huh?..."There is probably no God like that described in the Bible."
Reasons might include:
Problem of evil
Problem of hell
Hiddenness
And off we go discussing premises and arguments.
No appeals to "Well do you have all knowledge of the Universe so as to make it impossible for God to exist?"
If I'm a Lawyer and I enter a court to sue someone and say your honor I challenge the respondent to provide me evidence that my claim is false, I will get my [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] thrown out of court by the Judge and be referred to the bar association for disciplinary action.
Same idea here.
why is hell a problem? Supposedly, hellfire occurs at final judgement at the end of earth as we know it = Revelation 20:9+Yes. We don't want as an evidentiary standard to suggest that the epistemic agent have omniscience.
So we take an approach to knowledge that is center stage in human rationalism. I claim that P is true for the following reasons. And these are a variety of reasons.
P could be "There is probably no God like that described in the Bible."
Reasons might include:
Problem of evil
Problem of hell
Hiddenness
And off we go discussing premises and arguments.
No appeals to "Well do you have all knowledge of the Universe so as to make it impossible for God to exist?"
If I'm a Lawyer and I enter a court to sue someone and say your honor I challenge the respondent to provide me evidence that my claim is false, I will get my [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] thrown out of court by the Judge and be referred to the bar association for disciplinary action.
Same idea here.
huh?
evil comes from humans... Fallen human nature caused by humans blindly following mortal lusts, not to mention the fallen rebellious Angels
if it weren't for God in heaven commanding humans to just love & get along with each other on Earth... Things would be even WORSE
Frank Turek quoted a Jewish Rabbi who observed, if you were stuck in a rough neighborhood in the middle of the night, and you saw a group of youths come out of an alley and walk towards your car...
would you be relieved to know they were coming from a bible study class?
so... Evil... Fault of the Bible and believers following God's commandments??
Again, we are not defending theism or atheism here. Did you fail to notice my "Non-Denon" status under my avatar? I'm a Christian. I am trying to help all in this discussion make better arguments for their respective inferences whether they be atheistic or theistic. If God really exists, and has given humans faculties to perceive him minimally so they can approach him and ask for more evidence then what harm can come from helping all more accurately understand the world they live in?why is hell a problem? Supposedly, hellfire occurs at final judgement at the end of earth as we know it = Revelation 20:9+
since that hasn't happened yet, we don't know, we either trust God's claims based on other factors, or otherwise...
similarly, hiddenness? Sounds like you believe in dark matter and dark energy... Whose existences you infer based on visible EFFECTS
well, the bible records supernatural paranormal events that are allegedly the visible EFFECTS of God in heaven intervening into earth events
Romans 1:20
thanks for your reply
i should clarify... The Israelites appear to have had PAGAN preferences & proclivities
they apparently attributed the Exodus miracles to pagan Canaanite gods with Aaron's golden calf idols
modern Atheists say they reject all supernatural claims
if so, they are only similar to Israelites in rejecting YHWH as the source of the Exodus miracles...
- the Israelites were led to believe that Canaanite national deities wrought them, the truth of which is observable in Israel being conquered while so believing and worshipping
- atheists deny anything miraculous happened at all (i guess because nothing so grandiose & spectacular has happened recently near them)
superficially, the only overlap is rejecting that miraculous events occurred... Because of YHWH, God the father in heaven
Exodus 32:4I thought that hypothesis some or many attributed miracles from God through Moses to be from pagan gods interesting, though it should have to stand up to the details of Exodus when read through fully. We get so many details when we read through fully that are far more than only a good summary. Did you happen to have read through very recently? Though I did about 2 and 1/2 years ago, you made me curious to read through again to pick up details. Because one thing we'd wonder about regarding the attribute-to-pagan-God hypothesis is how would that work during the actual passover, where those that painted the lamb's blood over their door were passed over, and Egyptian gods very clearly didn't protect Egyptians even the tinest bit of course, and what a lesson to hit home and be remembered by every family in Israel (you'd think at least).
And what of the parting of the sea, when it then collapsed onto the Egyptian chariots and wipes them all out, whereas Israel has passed through unharmed entirely?...what a contrast. Later the water from the rock with Moses disobeying God and striking the rock instead of speaking words, but for Israel, very very very aware of its thrist -- what a powerful demonstration of the connection to God through Moses.
How could anyone in Israel then think otherwise after things like these (as they did)? See, that's what I was exclaiming on above, not the other parts that also seem meaningful but less prominent -- the still notable fact they brought their 'household gods' with them! Not a small thing, but...so much smaller than the miracles so sharply clear to be via Moses from God. I don't discount those other beliefs to zero...but. Now, I have to admit that Moses gone for 40 days is...
...well, that's just a really, really long time. That's fair to admit. So, one could see how some would revert finally, after so long, but....what were they truly reverting to precisely? Yes, everyone knows the golden calf god, akin to Eygptian ways of gods presented in animal form, etc. But... But, that gold used for that calf was from the Egyptians surrendering it directly to Israel after the death of their first born. Altogether, it takes a lot of ignoring and forgetting to revert to those gods, eh?
So, see, I'm feeling not too sure it was belief in those gods, any actaul belief in the golden calf for instance....wondering about that. I wonder instead if it's more about the comfortable familiar empty ritual -- the comfort of the familiar.
And that itself would be an aspect of hardness of heart, it seems possibly. In our hardness of heart, we revert to what it comfortable from the past. We can do that too, today, you and me and any Christian, if we stop looking to Christ in a bad moment, and revert back to the ways of the flesh, the comfortable ways of not loving our neighbors, not loving our brothers and sisters in our church. Those are making me think of hardness of heart. We know that hardness of heart is one of two specific reasons people don't believe according to what Christ told us in the gospels.
Regarding the more wholesale of Israel later following gods from Canaan, like B'aal and several more (and the shocking fact of what they then eventually did becasue of such), that's actaully pretty far later in time, btw.
I agree about negatives generally. There are negatives you can prove.
But.... there are certain kinds of negatives you cant prove. One example is a negative claim that would require universal searching to prove.
I think thats what your theists mean.
Here too in the case of atheistic claims we would ask for evidence, premises, arguments, but not omniscience.I agree about negatives generally. There are negatives you can prove.
But.... there are certain kinds of negatives you cant prove. One example is a negative claim that would require universal searching to prove.
I think thats what your theists mean.
What is "the case of theism"?Here too in the case of atheistic claims we would ask for evidence, premises, arguments, but not omniscience.
And in the case of theism, it is in no way analogous to proving a negative as (Russell, Dawkins, Harris, pretty sure Sagan had a version of it) have suggested. So we can prove a negative, an atheist can defend his inference at least inductively and theist can do the same. Since there is little scientific theory that has gained universal appeal, is found compelling to every scientist in that specialty, we wouldn't demand the atheist or theist to prove their claims in a different fashion then we justify most knowledge claims.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?